Match-making rating is a lagging indicator of game skill
I like to play an online strategy game called Starcraft II. Matches consist of a one-versus-one game where one of the players wins and the other is defeated, much like chess. The way players are ranked goes according to their rating, also called “MMR” (match-making rating).
The match-making system is designed so that evenly skilled players will tend to have similar MMR.
After each game, the winner gets some points added to their MMR, pushing them up in the ranking, leading them to face more skilled opponents. Conversely, the loser of the match gets some MMR subtracted, goes down in rating, and thus faces less skilled opponents.
In an equilibrium state, when a player's MMR closely matches their skill at the game, they will win roughly half of the matches they play and lose the other half, maintaining a roughly stable rating value.
Anyways, Starcraft II players who wish to improve their rating must play matches, but also become better at defending against common “cheeses” (early-game low-skill aggressive strategies), improve how they are managing their resources over time, or how they direct their units during attacks, so overall becoming more skilled at the game to be able to win more matches.
Despite that, players often report they feel anxious to start a ranked game because they might lose MMR.
Maybe they just had a good streak of wins, thus their next opponent is likely to be more skilled. Maybe they just had a streak of defeats and one more loss might push their MMR even lower.
What's important to realize, though, is that, by avoiding playing matches more often, they know they are not getting any more skilled at the game.
In this same position, the mental shift that worked for me is understanding that MMR is merely a lagging indicator of my skill in the game. Therefore, what truly matters--if my goal is enjoying the process of becoming a more skilled player--is not the rating number in my player profile, but instead my actual ability to win against skilled players.
Let me put this more concretely. Let's suppose that my MMR got randomly reset, and it's now a thousand points down.
With my actual skill at the game unchanged, the only consequence of this setback would be that I would spend the next 30 games being matched against less skilled opponents, and eventually would recover this “lost” MMR.
Say the opposite happened: my MMR got randomly boosted a thousand points up. Again, with my actual skill level unchanged, this would only mean I would face much more skilled opponents, and I would certainly get stomped for the next 30 games until my MMR reached a value corresponding my skill level.
Therefore, by seeing how MMR is only a lagging indicator of actual player skill, it becomes clear that fixating on any short-run MMR consequence is a distraction from the larger goal of improving at the game with regards to the ability to win matches.
MMR will eventually take care of itself, you need to play enough games and learn from each match.